Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Projection


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Leland on March 12, 1999 at 13:11:21:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Projection posted by Jay Bertolet on March 10, 1999 at 00:06:40:

I would think that my technique is much, much cruder than anybody who actually manufactures horns for a living! :)

The dentability of Monette trumpets is true, though -- the players that I know that have one have to be careful with them, especially the models with the normal-style braces and such. That's one reason for the extra bracing plates on the Monettes these days.

With my tuba, its heavy bottom remains while most of the brittleness has gone away. I'd say it's an improvement, but it's pretty darn subtle. Better results would be achieved more easily and with geater confidence in the outcome by buying a different horn altogether (which I did, making my Zeiss my "other tuba" that was free to be fiddled with).

I think one thing about Monette horns is what I've tended to call "showroom engineering", like a coupe's back seats that are made small to make the space around them look bigger, or boom-box stereos that sound best at eye level from about 3 feet away. When I tried a Monette tuba mpc for a day (sorry, only a day, and certainly different from a whole trumpet), at first I thought, "WOW, that's different! Good response, nice pitch, blah blah blah." Five hours later, though, I didn't see any real improvement in what was coming out of the horn. Everything not related to sound color turned out to be almost the same as with my PT50, and the sound itself wasn't as pleasing to me. Maybe I need to spend a month or so with one, but if Monette won't do trial periods, I can see better ways to spend my $300.

His adoption of the Alexander technique is a good call, though, and I'd say that would be the best reason to attend a Monette clinic.

Seeya,
Leland


Follow Ups: